In my previous post entitled “Spiritual Anti-Religionism” I drew a distinction between being religion and spirituality. This was something that until now I had never though of as separate things. This recent realization has sparked a large amount of interest in me to explore the concept of spirituality, as it is no longer what I thought it to be. The main question I have is related to the first reading we did for class, “Why do we Believe.” This article attempts to give a scientific explanation for why religion exists today. The primary arguments were that religion promoted group selection, and was therefore an evolutionarily stable strategy. This makes sense, but when we try to apply the same reason to why humans are spiritual it doesn’t work.
The problem is that spirituality alone does not imply group identity, or promote coherent society. As a person who thinks very scientifically, I think that fact that humans are intrinsically spiritual beings can be explained through natural selection. The following paragraphs are some theories that could explain why we are the way we are.
One possible reason is sort of implied, but not explicitly stated in “Why do we Believe.” This would be that spirituality is an emotional experience. I have discussed in a few previous posts the power of human emotion. Perhaps then spirituality developed to provide the emotional backing that makes religion so effective at being the big umbrella. This is the only real scientific explanation I can come up with.
There is, however, another non-scientific explanation. I have not written much in my blog posts about religious alternatives, but they must be taken in to account to achieve a thorough analysis. The other explanation is that the existence of spirituality in humans is divinely inspired. One cannot disprove the possibility that God exists and that either by instantaneous creation or by inspired evolution humans are intrinsically spiritual.
Overall, spirituality is one of the most important components of religion. Until recently I did not even distinguish the two as being different. I now realize they are different in that spirituality does not accomplish identity or cohesion by itself. Spirituality is merely a component of religion.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Response to Tammi
I just read Tammi's post on abstract art. In this post she expressed a frustration in not being able to find religion in a particular piece of art, continuing on to look at the physical properties of the painting and trying to connect them to religion. Looking for religion in the art itself is very interesting, but in after reading the articles I have approached the abstract art in a totally different way. For me it is not the physical painting where I see religion, but the context in which it was painted. Most of the people who are viewing this work have probably not read up before hand, but In a way the historical context behind the painting is a huge part of the art itself.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Spiritual Anti-Religionism
In the secular world, many are quick to point out the negative effects religion has had in human history, and in fact there have been quite a few. As one might expect secular literature has for the majority focused on the problems of a non-spiritual nature. Religion has been blamed for wars and poverty and hunger, but these are all things that do not actually have anything to do with the individual religious experience. As we discussed in class, Wallace Stevens was a secular writer who points out negative effects of religion, but he does not focus on what I would call secular issues. Wallace Steven’s writing objects to religion from a spiritual perspective.
We can see this clearly in two of Stevens’ poems, “Sunday Morning” and “On the Road Home.” My interpretation of these poems leads me to believe that Stevens is a transcendentalist. He implies that true spirituality is only achieved through embracing the natural world, and appreciating its beauty and symmetry.
“Shall she not find comforts in the sun,
In pungent fruit and bright, green wings, or else
In and balm or beauty of the earth,
Things to be cherished like the thought of heaven?”
Wallace Stevens, “Sunday Morning”, (Stanza 2 lines 5 - 8)
This passage is an excellent summary of what I find to be Stevens’ main point. He is suggesting that the natural world is just as praise worthy as any ideological concept of paradise or heaven (a concept normally associated with organized religion). I think that in the rest of his poem he implies that spending time thinking about heaven is a waste because it detracts from ones time to connect with nature.
We see a similar objection to religion in “On the Road Home.” In this poem Stevens focuses on the concept of ‘truth’ from a very philosophical perspective. The speakers in the poem are questioning the existence of truth. Many world religions make claims about truth, and Stevens addresses this issue.
“’The idols have seen lots of poverty,
Snakes and gold and lice,
But not the truth’;”
Wallace Stevens, “On the Road Home”, (Stanza 5 lines 2 – 4)
The placement of the comma after the word poverty leads me to believe that Stevens is labeling snakes and gold and lice all as forms of poverty. Gold is poverty? I’m not sure, but I think this might be a shot at the role materialism has played in religion. While a clever trick, this is not what I find most interesting in this passage. The real statement is Stevens’ proclamation that religion has not achieved truth—a statement that in my opinion is attacking the spiritual component of organized religion. Steven follows this with a passage about nature, and implies spirituality with contrasting tone.
“It was at that time, that the silence was largest
And longest, the night was roundest,
The fragrance of autumn was warmest,
Closest and strongest.”
(Stanza 6 lines 1 – 4)
I would label the poetry of Wallace Stevens as secular because it lacks a cohesive element that brings people together. Like a lot of other secular literature, Stevens’ poetry raises objections to religion, but it is unique in that his complaints are with spiritual issues. It is a refreshing change from other religious critics such as Sam Harris who just complain without acknowledging the existence of individual spirituality.
We can see this clearly in two of Stevens’ poems, “Sunday Morning” and “On the Road Home.” My interpretation of these poems leads me to believe that Stevens is a transcendentalist. He implies that true spirituality is only achieved through embracing the natural world, and appreciating its beauty and symmetry.
“Shall she not find comforts in the sun,
In pungent fruit and bright, green wings, or else
In and balm or beauty of the earth,
Things to be cherished like the thought of heaven?”
Wallace Stevens, “Sunday Morning”, (Stanza 2 lines 5 - 8)
This passage is an excellent summary of what I find to be Stevens’ main point. He is suggesting that the natural world is just as praise worthy as any ideological concept of paradise or heaven (a concept normally associated with organized religion). I think that in the rest of his poem he implies that spending time thinking about heaven is a waste because it detracts from ones time to connect with nature.
We see a similar objection to religion in “On the Road Home.” In this poem Stevens focuses on the concept of ‘truth’ from a very philosophical perspective. The speakers in the poem are questioning the existence of truth. Many world religions make claims about truth, and Stevens addresses this issue.
“’The idols have seen lots of poverty,
Snakes and gold and lice,
But not the truth’;”
Wallace Stevens, “On the Road Home”, (Stanza 5 lines 2 – 4)
The placement of the comma after the word poverty leads me to believe that Stevens is labeling snakes and gold and lice all as forms of poverty. Gold is poverty? I’m not sure, but I think this might be a shot at the role materialism has played in religion. While a clever trick, this is not what I find most interesting in this passage. The real statement is Stevens’ proclamation that religion has not achieved truth—a statement that in my opinion is attacking the spiritual component of organized religion. Steven follows this with a passage about nature, and implies spirituality with contrasting tone.
“It was at that time, that the silence was largest
And longest, the night was roundest,
The fragrance of autumn was warmest,
Closest and strongest.”
(Stanza 6 lines 1 – 4)
I would label the poetry of Wallace Stevens as secular because it lacks a cohesive element that brings people together. Like a lot of other secular literature, Stevens’ poetry raises objections to religion, but it is unique in that his complaints are with spiritual issues. It is a refreshing change from other religious critics such as Sam Harris who just complain without acknowledging the existence of individual spirituality.
Red and God
I have seen a lot of posts by other classmates that suggest that the old man in the movie Red represents God. While this is definitly an interesting idea, I disagree. I think a lot of people may be mislead by the fact that we watched the movie for religious studies. I admit that there are a lot of strange coincidences that occur in the movie that suggest that he is in some way supernatural, but I do not think this is grounds for assuming he is God.
When Valentine and the old man meet for the first time there is huge contrast in their personalities. The old man does his spooky prediction thing, and Valentine is thouroghly disgusted, confused, and intrigued. If this were the only scene that involved the old man, I might agree with the idea that he is in fact God--a strange old man that predicts the future and seems to provide philosophical insight into Valentine's life. However, as the movie progresses we see the old man more, and begin to see his character develope. He changes from being a mysterious hermit to a complex and influential character who reveals his emotions, regrets, and hopes.
The change in the character of the old man is also almost mirrored by Valentine. She starts out as this naive model, obsessed with her lover, but morphs to become more like the old man was in the beginning of the movie. I think this is shown in the scene at the model runway when Valentine predicts what happened to the old man in his previous life as a judge. This is what made the play come full circle for me becuase in a way the roles of Valentine and the old man had been reversed. If one is to make the argument that the old man represents God, based on his predictive powers in the beginning of the film, then Valentine must also be accepted as representing God. I don't, however, think this was the point of the movie.
When Valentine and the old man meet for the first time there is huge contrast in their personalities. The old man does his spooky prediction thing, and Valentine is thouroghly disgusted, confused, and intrigued. If this were the only scene that involved the old man, I might agree with the idea that he is in fact God--a strange old man that predicts the future and seems to provide philosophical insight into Valentine's life. However, as the movie progresses we see the old man more, and begin to see his character develope. He changes from being a mysterious hermit to a complex and influential character who reveals his emotions, regrets, and hopes.
The change in the character of the old man is also almost mirrored by Valentine. She starts out as this naive model, obsessed with her lover, but morphs to become more like the old man was in the beginning of the movie. I think this is shown in the scene at the model runway when Valentine predicts what happened to the old man in his previous life as a judge. This is what made the play come full circle for me becuase in a way the roles of Valentine and the old man had been reversed. If one is to make the argument that the old man represents God, based on his predictive powers in the beginning of the film, then Valentine must also be accepted as representing God. I don't, however, think this was the point of the movie.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Response to Imtiaz
I read Imtiaz's post The Ultimate Framework of Religion. In this post he says "The most fundamental difference between religion and science is the capacity for allegorical interpretation. It is very difficult to interpret scientific texts allegorically whereas most of the literature in religious texts has an allegorical meaning attached to it." For the most part I agree with this. However, I would like to point out that there is still allegory in Science, and especially in modern physics.
We understand the world as it is in terms of classical principles, but when we move into the world of the very small these fundamental laws break down. We can see this through experinment. We are thus forced to use allegory to explain theories for how things exist in the quantum world because we cannot observe them directly. Science does not use allegory often, but many times it is a useful tool in understanding those things that are beyond our direct human observation.
We understand the world as it is in terms of classical principles, but when we move into the world of the very small these fundamental laws break down. We can see this through experinment. We are thus forced to use allegory to explain theories for how things exist in the quantum world because we cannot observe them directly. Science does not use allegory often, but many times it is a useful tool in understanding those things that are beyond our direct human observation.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Quakers and Ferromagnetism
On Friday we talked a little about quaker quarter meetings. The effect that these meetings have on their participants reminded me of concept we just covered in Physics 230, Electricity and Magnetism--Ferromagnetism.
There are a few different types of magnetism, but ferromagnetism is the one most people are familiar with. Refrigerator magnets or magnets on executive toy things are almost always ferromagnets. Ferromagnets are actually just elements such as iron or compounds that exhibit the property of retaining their magnetic history. This means that when a magnetic field is applied to the object, the inividual molecules will all allign to produce a net magnet field in a common direction. When the external magnetic field is removed the molecules in the material remain alligned and continue to produce a magnetic field. You might have a piece of iron whose molecules are all alligned differently with respect to each other, but when an external magnetic field is turned on, they will all line up together. Over time the molecules will become unaligned due to other external phenomenon, but as soon as that magnetic field is reapplied they will fall right back into line.
One can make a connection between ferromagnetism and quaker quarter meetings by equating individuals in a meeting to individual molecules in a material. As individuals quakers will think independantly of their religious community, but in quarter meetings, individuals move towards having similar trains of thought. It is like a bunch of arrows pointing in different directions, but when the meeting starts they all slowly begin to point in the same direction, similar to molecules alligning in a magnetic field. Also, immediately after the meeting one can expect individual quakers to continue to think similarly just as a ferromagnet will mainain its properties a while after it has been alligned. And just as quakers need consistand and frequent meetings to maintain a similar direction, so do ferromagnets. Although I will add that the time scales for quakers and ferromagnets are much different.
There are a few different types of magnetism, but ferromagnetism is the one most people are familiar with. Refrigerator magnets or magnets on executive toy things are almost always ferromagnets. Ferromagnets are actually just elements such as iron or compounds that exhibit the property of retaining their magnetic history. This means that when a magnetic field is applied to the object, the inividual molecules will all allign to produce a net magnet field in a common direction. When the external magnetic field is removed the molecules in the material remain alligned and continue to produce a magnetic field. You might have a piece of iron whose molecules are all alligned differently with respect to each other, but when an external magnetic field is turned on, they will all line up together. Over time the molecules will become unaligned due to other external phenomenon, but as soon as that magnetic field is reapplied they will fall right back into line.
One can make a connection between ferromagnetism and quaker quarter meetings by equating individuals in a meeting to individual molecules in a material. As individuals quakers will think independantly of their religious community, but in quarter meetings, individuals move towards having similar trains of thought. It is like a bunch of arrows pointing in different directions, but when the meeting starts they all slowly begin to point in the same direction, similar to molecules alligning in a magnetic field. Also, immediately after the meeting one can expect individual quakers to continue to think similarly just as a ferromagnet will mainain its properties a while after it has been alligned. And just as quakers need consistand and frequent meetings to maintain a similar direction, so do ferromagnets. Although I will add that the time scales for quakers and ferromagnets are much different.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Social Growth along with Religion and Propaganda -- A response to Christopher Villa
I recently read Christopher’s post entitled “Does Religion Retard or Promote Social Growth?” It is a well-written post that begins to address the very beginnings of the issue and explains that religion in fact does both. I would like to focus in this blog on how religion promotes social growth by expanding upon Christopher’s argument and drawing parallels to another large force in social change—propaganda.
In his blog Christopher states that “religion contributes to the formation of social groups by providing common guidelines/norms the members can unite under. These norms, which in many cases have underlying moral premises, contribute to the formation of common ways of life.” This is a good summary, and it explains how a group of people can have similar mental framework allowing them to agree on the need for change. I think it is important to highlight the fact that social change is promoted as a result of similar ideals and beliefs. When people generally believe the same things, they are more likely to agree with each other on societal change, because they can relate it to their beliefs.
A very interesting parallel to this concept is that of propaganda. Many times propaganda is used with negative connotation, as its power has been exploited to do evil in the past, but propaganda is most often used to maintain peace and order in society. The best personal example I have of this is the teaching of democratic ideals at a very young age. I was a student in the public school system of Appleton, and remember learning in elementary school about democracy and the freedom it provides for American citizens. In retrospect I realize that it was completely subjective education. Very little was ever taught about other governmental systems which instilled in me a strong belief in the fundamental principles of democracy. I can only imagine it had the same effect on my classmates as well. I have realized that this propaganda for democracy is essential to maintain a stable government. It aligns Americans’ beliefs in a way which promotes the stability of the government.
One can then see that effects of propaganda are similar to those of religion in that they align the beliefs of their audience. As Christopher suggested this is what inevitably leads to social change. I discussed in my previous blog “Evolution (both biological and religious) leads to Stronger Identity,” the power of mixing secular and religious mediums to control large masses of people. Parallels between religion and propaganda lead me to suggest that the same might be true for social change. Perhaps using secular propaganda techniques in combination with religion is the most powerful way to affect change in a society.
In his blog Christopher states that “religion contributes to the formation of social groups by providing common guidelines/norms the members can unite under. These norms, which in many cases have underlying moral premises, contribute to the formation of common ways of life.” This is a good summary, and it explains how a group of people can have similar mental framework allowing them to agree on the need for change. I think it is important to highlight the fact that social change is promoted as a result of similar ideals and beliefs. When people generally believe the same things, they are more likely to agree with each other on societal change, because they can relate it to their beliefs.
A very interesting parallel to this concept is that of propaganda. Many times propaganda is used with negative connotation, as its power has been exploited to do evil in the past, but propaganda is most often used to maintain peace and order in society. The best personal example I have of this is the teaching of democratic ideals at a very young age. I was a student in the public school system of Appleton, and remember learning in elementary school about democracy and the freedom it provides for American citizens. In retrospect I realize that it was completely subjective education. Very little was ever taught about other governmental systems which instilled in me a strong belief in the fundamental principles of democracy. I can only imagine it had the same effect on my classmates as well. I have realized that this propaganda for democracy is essential to maintain a stable government. It aligns Americans’ beliefs in a way which promotes the stability of the government.
One can then see that effects of propaganda are similar to those of religion in that they align the beliefs of their audience. As Christopher suggested this is what inevitably leads to social change. I discussed in my previous blog “Evolution (both biological and religious) leads to Stronger Identity,” the power of mixing secular and religious mediums to control large masses of people. Parallels between religion and propaganda lead me to suggest that the same might be true for social change. Perhaps using secular propaganda techniques in combination with religion is the most powerful way to affect change in a society.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Are Narratives the Key to Everything?
I would like to attempt to connect the Rastafarian movement with the ideas of narrative we have discussed in class. In doing this I will draw parallels between Rastafarianism, and the Ethiopian religious movement brought about by the Kebra Negast.
As we discussed in class, narrative develops as a result of three things: 1. vagueness in an existing story, 2. the need to explain something current, which leads to 3. the expansion of ideas off of the explanation. These are all clearly visible in the Kebra Negast. The vagueness is achieved with Sheba
Now let’s take a look and see if the Rastafarian movement has followed this pattern as well. Vagueness was quite crucial in forming the movement. As described on the Wikipedia page, Rastafarianism relies a great deal on loose interpretations of the bible and specifically on the same claim that Ethiopian rulers are descendants of Solomon. This vagueness is what leads to the explanation in the Rastafarian movement that Haile Selassie is the messiah. The final element in narrative is expansion. This is most evident in Rastafarianism in the music and culture that has been produced. Inspirational song lyrics like those in many of Bob Marley’s songs have been the driving force behind its expansion.
The question I am left with after this analysis is: Does this idea of creating a narrative apply to all religious movements? We have discussed in class that religion was only able to form after the development of symbolic language. Perhaps we need to add another link into the chain. Symbolic language allowed humans to construct narratives, and the narratives are what actually allowed for the development of religion.
Are Narratives the Key to Everything?
I would like to attempt to connect the Rastafarian movement with the ideas of narrative we have discussed in class. In doing this I will draw parallels between Rastafarianism, and the Ethiopian religious movement brought about by the Kebra Negast.
As we discussed in class, narrative develops as a result of three things: 1. vagueness in an existing story, 2. the need to explain something current, which leads to 3. the expansion of ideas off of the explanation. These are all clearly visible in the Kebra Negast. The vagueness is achieved with Sheba
Now let’s take a look and see if the Rastafarian movement has followed this pattern as well. Vagueness was quite crucial in forming the movement. As described on the Wikipedia page, Rastafarianism relies a great deal on loose interpretations of the bible and specifically on the same claim that Ethiopian rulers are descendants of Solomon. This vagueness is what leads to the explanation in the Rastafarian movement that Haile Selassie is the messiah. The final element in narrative is expansion. This is most evident in Rastafarianism in the music and culture that has been produced. Inspirational song lyrics like those in many of Bob Marley’s songs have been the driving force behind its expansion.
The question I am left with after this analysis is: Does this idea of creating a narrative apply to all religious movements? We have discussed in class that religion was only able to form after the development of symbolic language. Perhaps we need to add another link into the chain. Symbolic language allowed humans to construct narratives, and the narratives are what actually allowed for the development of religion.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Response to Sarah's post "First Church of Darwin Environmentalist"
I just read Sarah's post on environmentalism, and I saw major coorelation with Alex Fairchild's post "Defining Religion." Alex questions the definition of religion, and concludes by saying that he always keeps "the scientific method in the background" when analyzing religion. I see this as being very similar to the mindset of those who take environmentalism as a religion.
The question of how you define religion is important here becuase one must avoid contradictions. The term "secular religion" is one of these contradictions. Secular by definition means not religious. With that in mind I think that environmentalism can be called a real religion. It has all of the effects as what most think of as religion.
The question of how you define religion is important here becuase one must avoid contradictions. The term "secular religion" is one of these contradictions. Secular by definition means not religious. With that in mind I think that environmentalism can be called a real religion. It has all of the effects as what most think of as religion.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Response to Caro's post on Ethiopia
I think Caro makes a very good point in noticing the differences between Ethiopian culture and our own, but I think she may have overlooked an important detail. Women distinguish themselves as being Christian by marking there foreheads. However, in this society, women who do not mark their foreheads are therefore distinguishing themselves as not being Christians. A society where religion is so prevalent must put pressure on those who are unsure or do not believe in Christianity. Anyone who has read Milgram's Obedience to Authority has at least some insight into the power conformity has over individuals.
I think it is great that women in Ethiopia are very open about being Christian, but I am hesitant to accept that everything is as it appears. Distinguishing oneselve as being of a particular religious persuation strengthens the community within the religion, but can comprimise the stability of interactions between people of different beliefs.
I think it is great that women in Ethiopia are very open about being Christian, but I am hesitant to accept that everything is as it appears. Distinguishing oneselve as being of a particular religious persuation strengthens the community within the religion, but can comprimise the stability of interactions between people of different beliefs.
Do We Still Need Religion?
In a few of my earlier blogs I have disscussed the issue of identity, and how religion has developed as a tool to build communities. However, there are many other tactics humans have developed to accomplish the same goal. Nationalism sticks out as being one of the more prominent ways to strengthen identity. Why then did nationalism develop so much later in human history than religion? Nationalism is quite old but, compared to religion, did not develop nearly as early or fast.
One theory might be that nationalism requires a much larger set of complex variables, such as governmental and economic structure, traditions, knowledge of surrounding geography, etc. Religion on the other hand, really only requires a group of people forming common beliefs in higher power(s) or morals.
Assuming religion developed solely to strengthen community, we now might ask: Do we still need religion? Other vehicles such as nationalism have developed that can build identity, many times much better than religion. Realistically humans will most likely never give up religion under the premise that other things just build community better, but it is an interesting way to think about it.
One theory might be that nationalism requires a much larger set of complex variables, such as governmental and economic structure, traditions, knowledge of surrounding geography, etc. Religion on the other hand, really only requires a group of people forming common beliefs in higher power(s) or morals.
Assuming religion developed solely to strengthen community, we now might ask: Do we still need religion? Other vehicles such as nationalism have developed that can build identity, many times much better than religion. Realistically humans will most likely never give up religion under the premise that other things just build community better, but it is an interesting way to think about it.
Response to "Peace in the Middle East?"
This is a response to Margaret's Post.
Margaret proposes in her blog that "Democracy is the government of choice because it does not allow for one man to run unchecked and uncontrolled by the people he governs" and that combining Islam with democracy will lead to peace. She is responding to the Sam Harris article and his view that Islam and peace can never co-exist.
I think that changing the governmental system in the Middle East will not necessarily affect this specific issue. Harris's argument is that it is fundamentally a problem with Islam, not with the government of Islamic states. I definitly agree that a change ito the political nightmare in the Middle East, is necessarily a change for the better, but I think it is unrelated to Harris's point.
The only way I see this idea changing the situation in Harris's eyes would be a fundamental change to Islam. Perhaps if Islam had more democratic foundations Harris would not think the way he does.
Margaret proposes in her blog that "Democracy is the government of choice because it does not allow for one man to run unchecked and uncontrolled by the people he governs" and that combining Islam with democracy will lead to peace. She is responding to the Sam Harris article and his view that Islam and peace can never co-exist.
I think that changing the governmental system in the Middle East will not necessarily affect this specific issue. Harris's argument is that it is fundamentally a problem with Islam, not with the government of Islamic states. I definitly agree that a change ito the political nightmare in the Middle East, is necessarily a change for the better, but I think it is unrelated to Harris's point.
The only way I see this idea changing the situation in Harris's eyes would be a fundamental change to Islam. Perhaps if Islam had more democratic foundations Harris would not think the way he does.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Evolution (both biological and religious) leads to Stronger Identity
In my previous blog entitled “Why Hitler was as powerful as a Religion” I discuss the importance of humans’ emotions in harnessing the power of large populations. Religion is effective at building communities because it uses this power to create a common identity among people. However, after reading and discussing the Kebra Negast, I believe that the issue of identity/community and how it relates to religion is more complex than I originally perceived.
As we discussed in class, nationalism is a tool that also uses humans’ emotions to build identity. In this sense, nationalism and religion are very similar, and can have very similar results such as war, monument construction, etc. Thus in the interest of building community it would be advantageous to combine the powers of nationalism with those of religion.
The combination of religion and nationalism is essentially what Kebra Negast achieves for Ethiopia and Christianity. A direct connection is made between the country of Ethiopia and Christianity in the section entitled “Concerning the Division of the Earth.”
“From the middle of Jerusalem, and from the north thereof to the south-east is the portion of the Emperor of Rom; and from the middle of Jerusalem from the north thereof to the south and to the Western India is the portion of the Emperor of Ethiopia. For both of them are the seed of Shem, the son of Noah, the seed of Abraham, the seed of David, the children of Solomon.” Kebra Negast Pg. 16
This passage clearly links Ethiopia directly with important Christian history. This connection strengthens and distinguishes the identity of Ethiopian Christians.
So how does this change the way I view the relationship between religion and community? An evolutionary approach to human development has lead to the idea that religion is a product of natural selection. It builds identity among groups of people which encourages individuals to act in the interest of ‘the many’ rather than ‘the few’. It is important to recognize then that religion was only evolutionarily advantageous because it instilled a sense of community in humans. One could then make the argument that religion does not directly benefit humans’ survival. Religion has survived natural selection only because its byproduct of exceptional community/identity building directly benefits humans’ survival. I therefore conclude that anything that leads to a stronger identity is, from a survival standpoint, similar to religion. Combining any of these identity builders with religion will result in more faith.
As we discussed in class, nationalism is a tool that also uses humans’ emotions to build identity. In this sense, nationalism and religion are very similar, and can have very similar results such as war, monument construction, etc. Thus in the interest of building community it would be advantageous to combine the powers of nationalism with those of religion.
The combination of religion and nationalism is essentially what Kebra Negast achieves for Ethiopia and Christianity. A direct connection is made between the country of Ethiopia and Christianity in the section entitled “Concerning the Division of the Earth.”
“From the middle of Jerusalem, and from the north thereof to the south-east is the portion of the Emperor of Rom; and from the middle of Jerusalem from the north thereof to the south and to the Western India is the portion of the Emperor of Ethiopia. For both of them are the seed of Shem, the son of Noah, the seed of Abraham, the seed of David, the children of Solomon.” Kebra Negast Pg. 16
This passage clearly links Ethiopia directly with important Christian history. This connection strengthens and distinguishes the identity of Ethiopian Christians.
So how does this change the way I view the relationship between religion and community? An evolutionary approach to human development has lead to the idea that religion is a product of natural selection. It builds identity among groups of people which encourages individuals to act in the interest of ‘the many’ rather than ‘the few’. It is important to recognize then that religion was only evolutionarily advantageous because it instilled a sense of community in humans. One could then make the argument that religion does not directly benefit humans’ survival. Religion has survived natural selection only because its byproduct of exceptional community/identity building directly benefits humans’ survival. I therefore conclude that anything that leads to a stronger identity is, from a survival standpoint, similar to religion. Combining any of these identity builders with religion will result in more faith.
Monday, April 23, 2007
The Problem with Humans
In his chapter “The Problem with Islam” Sam Harris says that Islam is inherently violent, and that all Muslims are truly vicious towards non-believers. However, I will argue that humans are inherently violent but also peaceful at the same time, and in understanding this one can achieve a more objective understanding of religion as a whole and find inconsistencies in Harris’s argument.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Response to "Defining Religion"
Alex Fairchild's recent blog "Defining Religion" is very insightful, and poses an interesting question: "can a person live an entirely non-religious life?" His motivation for this question comes from analyzing the definition of religion, as displayed on Dictionary.com. However, I think this question is based on the fact that Dictionary.com gives multiple definitions of religion. The Argument I would like to make is that according to some of the definitions given by the website, yes, someone can live an entirely non-religious life. One cannot assume that all the definitions for religion can be applied simultaneously. In fact, there are most likely some that are contradictory.
With what I have come to accept as my own personal definition of religion, I would argue that a person cannot live an entirely non-relgious life. My idea of religion is more aligned with dfn #6 from dictionary.com, where religion is something governed by the individual. The others, however, imply that there must be a group of people, or a mutual acceptance of an idea.
To truly analize whether a person can live an entirely non-religious life based on the definitions in a dictionary, one must pick a single definition and stick to it.
I don't think Alex really did that, but I just thought it was an important distinction to make.
With what I have come to accept as my own personal definition of religion, I would argue that a person cannot live an entirely non-relgious life. My idea of religion is more aligned with dfn #6 from dictionary.com, where religion is something governed by the individual. The others, however, imply that there must be a group of people, or a mutual acceptance of an idea.
To truly analize whether a person can live an entirely non-religious life based on the definitions in a dictionary, one must pick a single definition and stick to it.
I don't think Alex really did that, but I just thought it was an important distinction to make.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Shakespeare and Lamentations
(In this analysis I am taking the book of Lamentations literally and not the way Origen describes it. An excellent argument explaining a large portion of my rationale in this decision can be found in Carissa’s post The Function of Allegory.)
The second scene of Act I in William Shakespeare’s King Lear is a dialogue between a father, Gloucester, and his two sons Edgar and Edmund. Edmund lies and warns his father (behind Edgar’s back) that Edgar is planning to assassinate him. Gloucester is of course upset with this news and, being superstitious, passes along the blame of his misfortune, proclaiming:
“These late eclipses in the sun and moon por-
tend no good to us. Though the wisdom of nature
can reason it thus and thus, yet nature finds itself
scourged by the sequent effect.” (King Lear, Act I scene 2)
In this passage Shakespeare, a master of human nature, hits a human characteristic that I will argue, in a secular analysis of religion, is the inspiration behind the book of Lamentations. Gloucester’s speech here reveals a fundamental human habit to assign explanations. In King Lear Gloucester excuses and explains his son’s plot to murder him with movements of celestial bodies. I argue that this human characteristic is the driving force behind the book of Lamentations, because the entire book describes and attempts to rationalize the fall of Jerusalem by placing blame/responsibility on the supernatural. The book makes God guilty of (or responsible for) the fall Jerusalem, and the evil and misfortune that plagues its citizens. In other words, the sack of Jerusalem is like Edgar’s supposed plot to kill his father, and divine intervention in Lamentations is like Gloucester’s set of astrological excuses and explanations.
I want to end this post with another quote from King Lear that is the direct response to the passage cited earlier. However, I would first like to clarify that the following quote is not meant to reflect my personal belief in the origins of religious writings. I merely find this to be an interesting perspective on the origin of humans’ explanations/excuses for all things, religion and religious works included.
“This is the excellent floppery of the world, that,
when we are sick in fortune, often the surfeit of our own
behavior, we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the
moon, and the stars; as if we were villains by necessity;
fools by heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and
treachers, by spherical predominance; drunkards, liars,
and adulterers, by an enforced obedience of planetary
influence; and all that we are evil in by a divine thrusting
on.” (King Lear, Act I scene 2)
The second scene of Act I in William Shakespeare’s King Lear is a dialogue between a father, Gloucester, and his two sons Edgar and Edmund. Edmund lies and warns his father (behind Edgar’s back) that Edgar is planning to assassinate him. Gloucester is of course upset with this news and, being superstitious, passes along the blame of his misfortune, proclaiming:
“These late eclipses in the sun and moon por-
tend no good to us. Though the wisdom of nature
can reason it thus and thus, yet nature finds itself
scourged by the sequent effect.” (King Lear, Act I scene 2)
In this passage Shakespeare, a master of human nature, hits a human characteristic that I will argue, in a secular analysis of religion, is the inspiration behind the book of Lamentations. Gloucester’s speech here reveals a fundamental human habit to assign explanations. In King Lear Gloucester excuses and explains his son’s plot to murder him with movements of celestial bodies. I argue that this human characteristic is the driving force behind the book of Lamentations, because the entire book describes and attempts to rationalize the fall of Jerusalem by placing blame/responsibility on the supernatural. The book makes God guilty of (or responsible for) the fall Jerusalem, and the evil and misfortune that plagues its citizens. In other words, the sack of Jerusalem is like Edgar’s supposed plot to kill his father, and divine intervention in Lamentations is like Gloucester’s set of astrological excuses and explanations.
I want to end this post with another quote from King Lear that is the direct response to the passage cited earlier. However, I would first like to clarify that the following quote is not meant to reflect my personal belief in the origins of religious writings. I merely find this to be an interesting perspective on the origin of humans’ explanations/excuses for all things, religion and religious works included.
“This is the excellent floppery of the world, that,
when we are sick in fortune, often the surfeit of our own
behavior, we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the
moon, and the stars; as if we were villains by necessity;
fools by heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and
treachers, by spherical predominance; drunkards, liars,
and adulterers, by an enforced obedience of planetary
influence; and all that we are evil in by a divine thrusting
on.” (King Lear, Act I scene 2)
Friday, April 6, 2007
Body Painting
One very important issue that Mithlen is quick to dismiss in his book The Singing Neanderthals is that of body painting. Mithlen’s entire thesis seems to be based around his unique idea of the ‘hmmmmm’ and that the Neanderthals were incapable of symbolic thought, and the existence of body painting would be a threat to his theories.
Mithlen makes two arguments against the use of symbolic body painting. The first is that the paint was most likely used for camouflage. (230) This makes sense, as the Neanderthals were hunters and it would have been an advantage in the wilderness. However, the use of body paint of camouflage does not in anyway suggest that it was not used for symbolic painting. Mithen has not proved anything with this point
The second argument Mithlen makes is that “Had the Neanderthal pigment use been for symbolic purposes… [we] would expect to see a wider range of pigments at their sites, especially modules of ochre used to create red paint.” (230) I find this argument to be even weaker than the first. There is no rule that says symbols must be drawn in more than one color. Also, in regards to the lack of red pigment, is it not completely possible that the Neanderthals may have used their own blood? Their autopsies show that they experienced traumatic wounds. Maybe some of these wounds were self-inflicted. This might also explain why the injured were looked out for so well.
I do not think my ideas to be the truth. I am merely pointing out the flaws in Mithlen’s immediate dismissal of symbolic body painting. His arguments are illogical. If Neanderthal’s did practice symbolic body painting, our image of them changes drastically especially in the realm of religion. We concluded in class that symbolic thought is what differentiates humans from Neanderthals, but his conclusion was only based on the far from rigorous exploration and conclusions of Steven Mithlen.
Mithlen makes two arguments against the use of symbolic body painting. The first is that the paint was most likely used for camouflage. (230) This makes sense, as the Neanderthals were hunters and it would have been an advantage in the wilderness. However, the use of body paint of camouflage does not in anyway suggest that it was not used for symbolic painting. Mithen has not proved anything with this point
The second argument Mithlen makes is that “Had the Neanderthal pigment use been for symbolic purposes… [we] would expect to see a wider range of pigments at their sites, especially modules of ochre used to create red paint.” (230) I find this argument to be even weaker than the first. There is no rule that says symbols must be drawn in more than one color. Also, in regards to the lack of red pigment, is it not completely possible that the Neanderthals may have used their own blood? Their autopsies show that they experienced traumatic wounds. Maybe some of these wounds were self-inflicted. This might also explain why the injured were looked out for so well.
I do not think my ideas to be the truth. I am merely pointing out the flaws in Mithlen’s immediate dismissal of symbolic body painting. His arguments are illogical. If Neanderthal’s did practice symbolic body painting, our image of them changes drastically especially in the realm of religion. We concluded in class that symbolic thought is what differentiates humans from Neanderthals, but his conclusion was only based on the far from rigorous exploration and conclusions of Steven Mithlen.
Technology and Burial Mounds…
What makes a religion or religious customs change? It’s a big question, but the second to last paragraph in the fifth chapter of Indian Mounds of Wisconsin by Robert Birmingham and Leslie Eisenberg may provide some insight. The paragraph attempts to explain why the Native American effigy mound construction came to an abrupt halt around 1200 A.D. Birmingham and Eisenberg agree with Robert Hall’s idea which explains the phenomenon as such:
“Robert Hall believes that the end of the period of burial mound construction (which was supplanted in Oneota culture by large belowground cemeteries with individual graves) occurred as ceremonialism shifted emphasis from world renewal in general, symbolized in various ways by the periodic construction of mounds, to new agriculturally based concerns about the fertility of the earth, which became a matter separated from the death ritual. In short, culture had dramatically changed, and the building of earthen mound ceremonial centers was s custom that was no longer needed.”(141)
This passage describes the specific case of the Native Americans quite well, but I believe there is also a larger concept put forth about general change in religious or ceremonial behavior.
It is suggested in the passage that the Native Americans stopped building the effigy mounds because they did not fit into their changing views of the earth. There society was becoming more focused on agriculture, a change considered by most to be an advance in technology and sophistication. From this perspective, one might conclude that the change in the religious or ceremonial behaviors of the Native Americans (not building effigy mounds) was a direct result from a technological advance in there society.
Applying this concept to major changes in religious or ceremonial behavior in different cultures and religions helps to validate the idea. Two examples are the Catholic Church’s stance on science and modern Muslim mosques. The Catholic Church is fairly obvious in that over time scientific advances have changed the churches ‘official stance’ on the nature of things. The big bang theory is a good example of this. The example of the mosques may seem a little less significant, but before modern speaker technology the muezzin (leader of the prayer call or adhan) was required to sing atop the minarets. Electronic speaker systems now allow the muezzin to sing into a microphone which is then projected to the surrounding area.
While advances in technology may not be the only cause of change in a religion or culture, one can see that it is a very present force. It is what compelled the Native Americans to discontinue building ceremonial effigy mounds. One only need to look at changes in other cultures and religions to see the influence of technology.
While advances in technology may not be the only cause of change in a religion or culture, one can see that it is a very present force. It is what compelled the Native Americans to discontinue building ceremonial effigy mounds. One only need to look at changes in other cultures and religions to see the influence of technology.
“Robert Hall believes that the end of the period of burial mound construction (which was supplanted in Oneota culture by large belowground cemeteries with individual graves) occurred as ceremonialism shifted emphasis from world renewal in general, symbolized in various ways by the periodic construction of mounds, to new agriculturally based concerns about the fertility of the earth, which became a matter separated from the death ritual. In short, culture had dramatically changed, and the building of earthen mound ceremonial centers was s custom that was no longer needed.”(141)
This passage describes the specific case of the Native Americans quite well, but I believe there is also a larger concept put forth about general change in religious or ceremonial behavior.
It is suggested in the passage that the Native Americans stopped building the effigy mounds because they did not fit into their changing views of the earth. There society was becoming more focused on agriculture, a change considered by most to be an advance in technology and sophistication. From this perspective, one might conclude that the change in the religious or ceremonial behaviors of the Native Americans (not building effigy mounds) was a direct result from a technological advance in there society.
Applying this concept to major changes in religious or ceremonial behavior in different cultures and religions helps to validate the idea. Two examples are the Catholic Church’s stance on science and modern Muslim mosques. The Catholic Church is fairly obvious in that over time scientific advances have changed the churches ‘official stance’ on the nature of things. The big bang theory is a good example of this. The example of the mosques may seem a little less significant, but before modern speaker technology the muezzin (leader of the prayer call or adhan) was required to sing atop the minarets. Electronic speaker systems now allow the muezzin to sing into a microphone which is then projected to the surrounding area.
While advances in technology may not be the only cause of change in a religion or culture, one can see that it is a very present force. It is what compelled the Native Americans to discontinue building ceremonial effigy mounds. One only need to look at changes in other cultures and religions to see the influence of technology.
While advances in technology may not be the only cause of change in a religion or culture, one can see that it is a very present force. It is what compelled the Native Americans to discontinue building ceremonial effigy mounds. One only need to look at changes in other cultures and religions to see the influence of technology.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Religious Beliefs Can’t Disprove Scientific Explanations
(a response to Scientific Explanations Can’t Disprove Religious Beliefs, a post by Carrisa)
I first would like to say that I agree with what Carissa argues in her post. She states that “Science and religion are separate entities, science dealing--by definition--with the physical world, and religion (and philosophy) dealing with the metaphysical.” In making this distinction one must realize that by definition, science will never be able grasp religion in its entirety.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Why Hitler was as powerful as a Religion
One topic that caught my attention in the article "Why do we Believe" by Robin Marantz Henig was the difference between secular and religious rituals. Marantz argues, citing to Stosis, that religious rituals are more powerful than secular rituals because they hinge on belief rather than proof. "The [religious] rituals are 'beyond the possibility of examination,' ... and a commitment to them is therefore emotional rather than logical -- a commitment that is, in Stosis's view, deeper and longer lasting." The argument explains, from and evolution standpoint, why vehicles that organize humans into communities developed as religious rituals and not secular rituals. I find this to be directly related to the concept of legitimacy of power, a topic covered in my Intro to Political Science class last term.
The idea of legitimacy suggests that any person in an authoritative role must have some trait, quality, or experience that people recognize and accept to be a reason to keep that person in power. The theory of the rationalization of authority is developed by Samuel Huntington in his book Political Order in Changing Societies. Huntington suggests that qualities from which rulers derive their legitimacy separate them into two groups, charismatic leaders and rational-legal leaders. A rational-legal leader is accepted by a constituency because he or she has proven themselves to be a good ruler. They have been successful in authoritative roles, and people accept them based on a logical evaluation of their abilities. A charismatic leader is accepted based on how people feel about the person. This distinction grants a charismatic leader an enormous amount of power compared to a rational-legal leader, because people are willing to act on their emotions as opposed to always making logical decisions.
The best example of the enormous power of a charismatic leader is Adolph Hitler. The German people elected Hitler based on the way he made them feel. His plans and promises were not backed up by any sort of experience or success he had previously had. It was Hitler’s ability to manipulate people’s emotions that lead to the horrors of World War II and the holocaust. People would not have religiously carried out Hitler’s evil as they did had they been thinking logically instead of emotionally.
I will conclude by suggesting that if one is to accept the existence of religion based on the arguments of Henig and Stosis in my first paragraph, it follows that religious rituals have triumphed ever secular ones for the same reason Hitler or other charismatic leaders have been able to control human beings. They both cater to human nature by deriving their power from emotions.
The idea of legitimacy suggests that any person in an authoritative role must have some trait, quality, or experience that people recognize and accept to be a reason to keep that person in power. The theory of the rationalization of authority is developed by Samuel Huntington in his book Political Order in Changing Societies. Huntington suggests that qualities from which rulers derive their legitimacy separate them into two groups, charismatic leaders and rational-legal leaders. A rational-legal leader is accepted by a constituency because he or she has proven themselves to be a good ruler. They have been successful in authoritative roles, and people accept them based on a logical evaluation of their abilities. A charismatic leader is accepted based on how people feel about the person. This distinction grants a charismatic leader an enormous amount of power compared to a rational-legal leader, because people are willing to act on their emotions as opposed to always making logical decisions.
The best example of the enormous power of a charismatic leader is Adolph Hitler. The German people elected Hitler based on the way he made them feel. His plans and promises were not backed up by any sort of experience or success he had previously had. It was Hitler’s ability to manipulate people’s emotions that lead to the horrors of World War II and the holocaust. People would not have religiously carried out Hitler’s evil as they did had they been thinking logically instead of emotionally.
I will conclude by suggesting that if one is to accept the existence of religion based on the arguments of Henig and Stosis in my first paragraph, it follows that religious rituals have triumphed ever secular ones for the same reason Hitler or other charismatic leaders have been able to control human beings. They both cater to human nature by deriving their power from emotions.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
The Catholic Church and Group Selection
This idea is way out there, and I just want to see it will go anywhere. The Catholic Church operates similarly to group selection.
The idea of group selection highlighted in “Why do we Believe” suggests that over time traits that are beneficial to the survival of a group will many times be an evolutionarily stable strategy (Dawkins) even if it involves self-sacrifice. This is an argument explaining the development of religion as “hardware” in humans. The act of building a temple does not promote the survival of the builder because he would be better off spending his time and resources finding food or shelter. However, once the temple is built it will promote the survival of the society as a whole because it unifies the people and motivates individuals to act for the good of one, but for the good of many.
The structure of the Catholic Church is similar. Many individuals with authority in the Church take vows of abstinence, an obvious sacrifice that few are willing to make. However, some believe that the sacrifice of sex and other pleasures that may be restricted by the vows of certain clergy members is a crucial part in maintaining the Catholic Church and spreading their message effectively. The Catholic Church has processes that are similar to those in group selection which may be one of the reasons for its survival thus far.
To sum it up:
à = Analogous to
Clergy members à Temple builder
n these people exhibit behavior that does not benefit themselves, but is for the good of the group
Vows of Abstinence à Building the temple instead of collecting food.
n This is the sacrifice made by the individual
The Catholic Church à The temple builder’s society
n this is the group being promoted
Maintaining the Catholic Church à The survival of the society
n the premise for the theory of group selection
Again this is just a weird idea I had. I don’t mean to belittle Catholic Church in any way.
The idea of group selection highlighted in “Why do we Believe” suggests that over time traits that are beneficial to the survival of a group will many times be an evolutionarily stable strategy (Dawkins) even if it involves self-sacrifice. This is an argument explaining the development of religion as “hardware” in humans. The act of building a temple does not promote the survival of the builder because he would be better off spending his time and resources finding food or shelter. However, once the temple is built it will promote the survival of the society as a whole because it unifies the people and motivates individuals to act for the good of one, but for the good of many.
The structure of the Catholic Church is similar. Many individuals with authority in the Church take vows of abstinence, an obvious sacrifice that few are willing to make. However, some believe that the sacrifice of sex and other pleasures that may be restricted by the vows of certain clergy members is a crucial part in maintaining the Catholic Church and spreading their message effectively. The Catholic Church has processes that are similar to those in group selection which may be one of the reasons for its survival thus far.
To sum it up:
à = Analogous to
Clergy members à Temple builder
n these people exhibit behavior that does not benefit themselves, but is for the good of the group
Vows of Abstinence à Building the temple instead of collecting food.
n This is the sacrifice made by the individual
The Catholic Church à The temple builder’s society
n this is the group being promoted
Maintaining the Catholic Church à The survival of the society
n the premise for the theory of group selection
Again this is just a weird idea I had. I don’t mean to belittle Catholic Church in any way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)